In today’s hypersensitive environment wherein there are many who call for the complete banishment from history of any prominent figure who was involved in any way with the insidious institution of slavery, I have no doubt that the subject of this week’s Inspiration would be included among those whose words would be forever banned from our discourse. Henry Clay, Sr. (1777-1852) was a lawyer, planter, and statesman who represented Kentucky in both the United States Senate and House of Representatives. Although a slaveholder, Clay disapproved of slavery as a system; he advocated gradual emancipation and the resettlement of the freed people in Africa. He defended, unsuccessfully, the right of the so-called Five Civilized Tribes of Indians to their lands. He warned that annexation of Texas would provoke war with Mexico and exacerbate tensions between North and South, and he opposed the war when it came. He consistently fostered good relations with Latin America.
Leader of the Whig party and five times an unsuccessful presidential candidate, Clay played a central role on the stage of national politics for over forty years. He was secretary of state under John Quincy Adams, Speaker of the House of Representatives longer than anyone else in the nineteenth century, and the most influential member of the Senate during its golden age.
Clay was known as the “Great Compromiser,” he was invaluable in constructing landmark legislative compromises including the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Tariff Compromise of 1833, and the Compromise of 1850. Coming from the border state of Kentucky, he was predisposed toward moderation in a time of great divisiveness in our country when sectional conflicts between northern and southern states were frequent and rancorous. His main objective was to avoid a civil war. But in this, as in so many of his more immediate goals, he was defeated. His Whig party disappeared shortly after his death, but its successor, the Republican party, put many features of the American System into operation. In the long run, his economic and political vision of America was largely fulfilled.
In 1957, Senator John F. Kennedy chaired a special Senate committee that honored Clay as one of the five greatest senators in American history. Abraham Lincoln paid Clay the greatest of compliments when he said Clay was “my beau ideal of a great man.”
Clay appealed to the virtue of “mutual sacrifice” to preserve unity and strength in the nation. Though his convictions did not always make him popular, he was committed to acting on good character. He is quoted once remarking, “ I would rather be right than be President.” This dedication to doing right is the motivation underlying his famous “Compromise Speech” made before his Senate colleagues on February 6, 1850. Consider whether, despite the bad reputation of compromise that is so prevalent today, that there is a desperate need for us to distinguish between a willingness on principle to compromise and a willingness to compromise on principle.
“It has been objected against this measure that it is a compromise. It has been said that it is a compromise of principle, or of a principle. Mr. President, what is a compromise? It is a work of mutual concession—an agreement in which there are reciprocal stipulations—a work in which, for the sake of peace and concord, one party abates his extreme demands in consideration of the abatement of extreme demands by the other party: it is a measure of mutual concession—a measure of mutual sacrifice.
Undoubtedly, Mr. President, in all such measures of compromise, one party would be very glad to get what he wants, and reject what he does not desire but which the other party wants. But when he comes to reflect that, from the nature of the government and its operations, and from those with which he is dealing, it is necessary upon his part, in order to secure what he wants, to grant something to the other side, he should be reconciled to the concession which he has made in consequence of the concession he is to receive, if there is no great principle involved, such as a violation of the Constitution of the United States. I admit that such a compromise as that ought never be sanctioned or adopted. But I now call upon any senator in his place to point out from the beginning to the end, from California to New Mexico, a solitary provision in this bill which is violate of the Constitution of the United States.
The responsibility of this great measure passes from the hands of the committee, and from my hands. They know, and I know, that it is an awful and tremendous responsibility. I hope that you will meet it with a just conception and a true appreciation of its magnitude, and the magnitude of the consequences that may ensue from your decision one way or the other. The alternatives, I fear, which the measure presents, are concord and increased discord…I believe from the bottom of my soul that the measure is the reunion of this Union. I believe it is the dove of peace, which, taking its aerial flight from the dome of the Capitol, carries the glad tidings of assured peace and restored harmony to all the remotest extremities of this distracted land. I believe that it will be attended with all these beneficent effects. And now let us discard all resentment, all passions, all petty jealousies, all personal desires, all love of place, all hankerings after the gilded crumbs which fall from the table of power. Let us forget popular fears, from whatever quarter they may spring. Let us go to the limpid fountain of unadulterated patriotism, and, performing a solemn lustration, return divested of all selfish, sinister, and sordid impurities, and think alone of our God, our country, our consciences, and our glorious Union—that Union without which we shall be torn into hostile fragments, and sooner or later become the victims of military despotism or foreign domination…
Let us look to our country and our cause, elevate ourselves to the dignity of pure and disinterested patriots, and save our country from all impending dangers. What if, in the march of this nation to greatness and power, we should be buried beneath the wheels that propel it onward?…
I call upon all the South. Sir, we have had hard words, bitter words, bitter thoughts, unpleasant feelings toward each other in the progress of this great measure. Let us forget them. Let us sacrifice these feelings. Let us go to the altar of our country and swear, as the oath was taken of old, that we will stand by her; that we will support her; that we will uphold her Constitution; that we will preserve her union; and that we will pass this great, comprehensive, and healing system of measures, which will hush all the jarring elements and bring peace and tranquility to our homes.
Let me, Mr. President, in conclusion, say that the most disastrous consequences would occur, in my opinion, were we to go home, doing nothing to satisfy and tranquilize the country upon these great questions. What will be the judgement of mankind, what the judgement of that portion of mankind who are looking upon the progress of this scheme of self-government as being that which holds the highest hopes and expectations of ameliorating the condition of mankind—what will their judgment be? Will not all monarchs of the Old World pronounce our glorious republic a disgraceful failure? Will you go home and leave all in discord and confusion—all unsettled—all open? The contentions and agitations of the past will be increased and augmented by the agitations resulting from our neglect to decide them.”
Though Henry Clay’s words are 170 years old, with just a little editing they could be appropriately delivered today within our Senate or House of Representatives. Alas, we are devoid of his like.
The time will come when Winter will ask you what you were doing all Summer. – Henry Clay, Sr.
Have an AWE-full Weekend!
William “Bill” Bacque